Concerns by the citizens of Missouri and the Missouri legislature regarding allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement prompted the passage of state law Section 590.650, RSMo (2000), which was enacted Aug. 28, 2000. Racial profiling has been defined as the inappropriate use of race by law enforcement when making a decision to stop, search or arrest a motorist.

Missouri's state law requires that all peace officers in the state report specific information including a driver's race for each traffic stop made in the state. Law enforcement agencies are required to turn in the data to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General is required to compile the data and report to the Governor no later than June 1 of each year. The law allows the Governor to withhold state funds for any agency which does not comply with the law. State law requires that all information be reported to the Attorney General's Office by March 1.

The summary of statewide racial profiling data has been provided by Scott H. Decker, curator's professor of criminology and criminal justice; Richard Rosenfeld, professor of criminology and criminal justice; and Jeffrey Rojek, doctoral candidate in criminology and criminal justice; all at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

This report summarizes the data from 620 law enforcement agencies in
Missouri for 2002. This represents 86 percent of the 720 law enforcement
agencies in the state. (An additional 41 of those agencies submitted
letters indicating they made no traffic stops during the year.) The
agencies filing reports recorded 1,369,185 traffic stops, resulting in
108,539 searches and 79,576 arrests. Table 1 breaks out the stops, searches and arrests by race and ethnic group.

Four summary indicators are included in Table 1 that may be useful in initiating further assessments of racial profiling in traffic stops. The first, termed the "disparity index," relates each group's proportion of total traffic stops to its proportion of the driving-age population 16 and older.

A value of 1 on this index indicates that a group's proportion of
traffic stops equals its population proportion: it is neither
“under-represented” nor “over-represented” in traffic stops. Values
above 1 indicate over-representation, and those below 1 indicate
under-representation. For example, the 1,130,546 whites who were stopped
accounted for 82.6 percent of all traffic stops in 2002.

According to the 2000 census, whites comprise 85.2 percent of
Missouri's driving-age population. The value for whites on the disparity
index is, therefore, .826/.852 or .97. Whites were stopped, in other
words, at just slightly below the rate we would expect based on their
fraction of the population.

The same is not the case for several of the other groups.
African-Americans represent 10.3 percent of the population 16 and older
but 14 percent of all traffic stops, for a value on the disparity index
of 1.36. African-Americans were stopped at a rate 36 percent higher than
expected based solely on their proportion of the population 16 and
older. Hispanics were stopped at a rate slightly above their population
proportion, and Asians, American Indians and persons of mixed or unknown
race were stopped at a rate below their proportion of the population.

The values on the disparity index for the groups can be compared
directly to one another. For example, the likelihood that an
African-American motorist was stopped is 1.4 times that of a white
motorist (1.36/.97). In other words, African-Americans were 40 percent
more likely than whites to be stopped in 2002.

The disparity index is a gauge of the likelihood
drivers of a given race or ethnic group are stopped based on their
proportion of the residential population 16 and older, and not of the
population of motorists on the state's streets, roads, and highways. A
group's share of the residential population 16 and older may or may not
equal its proportion of drivers. Although in most instances the two
proportions should be close, that may not always be the case.

The extremely low index values for American Indians, for example,
could indicate that they are under-represented among the state's
motorists. In addition, motorists from other states are stopped on
Missouri's roadways. To the extent that out-of-state drivers do not
reflect the race and ethnic composition of Missouri's population, the
disparity index will not accurately portray the probability that
Missouri residents are stopped.

The second indicator that can be used to assess
racial profiling is the "search rate," or the number of searches divided
by the number of stops (x 100). The search rate for all motorists who
were stopped is 7.93 percent. Whites and American Indians were searched
at rates close to the statewide average. (Searches include searches of
drivers or property in the vehicle.) Asians were searched at a rate well
below the statewide average, and blacks and Hispanics were searched at
rates above the average for all motorists who were stopped.

The search rate for the different groups also can be compared
directly with one another. Blacks were 1.78 times more likely to be
searched than whites (12.59/7.06); Hispanics were more than twice as
likely as whites to be searched (14.29/7.06).

The reasons for conducting a search and the outcome of the search
(such as finding contraband) should be considered when making
comparisons across groups. Some searches are conducted with the consent
of the driver, or because the officer observed suspected contraband in
plain view, had reasonable suspicion that an individual may possess a
weapon (Terry search), or other reasons. These searches may or may not
result in an arrest.

Other searches are conducted incident to arrest — this means that
there is no other reason given for the search other than arrest.
Searches are almost always performed when there is an outstanding
warrant.

The third summary indicator, the "contraband hit
rate," reflects the percentage of searches in which contraband is found.
Contraband is found in 21.1 percent of all searches conducted. However,
there is considerable variation in the contraband hit rate across race
and ethnic groups.

The contraband hit rate for whites was 22.6 percent, compared with
17.5 percent for blacks and 17.3 percent for Hispanics. This means that,
on average, searches of blacks and Hispanics produce less contraband
than do those of whites. This difference is most likely attributable to
the higher arrest rates for blacks and Hispanics, circumstances that
compel a search.

The "arrest rate" is the fourth summary indicator included in Table 1
that may be useful for assessing racial profiling. Just under 6 percent
of all traffic stops resulted in an arrest (79,576/1,369,185). The
probability of arrest varies across the race and ethnic groups.
Approximately 10 percent of the stops of African Americans and Hispanics
resulted in arrest, compared with about 5 percent of the stops of
whites. African Americans and Hispanics are stopped and searched more
often than whites, but they are arrested more often as well.

This year's report compares (PDF file 1,465K) the 2002 disparity index to the disparity indexes for 2002, 2001 and 2000.

For each agency, the disparity index for each race-ethnic group is
presented for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. For the state as a whole,
the key indicators show only small changes between 2001 and 2002. The
largest change is registered in the contraband hit rate (the fraction of
searches in which contraband is found) for Hispanics. In 2001, 10.6
percent of searches of Hispanics resulted in contraband, compared with a
contraband hit rate of 17.3 percent for Hispanics in 2002.

A reasoned determination of the existence of racial profiling in a
community requires a comprehensive evaluation of the full range of
information compiled in the agency reports. This brief summary of
selected indicators for the state as a whole is intended to stimulate
those local evaluations and dialogue.

Table 2. Agencies that did not submit reports as required by state law

*Denotes agencies that submitted reports, but after the deadline. (Section 590.650, RSMo)

Alexandria Police Dept.

Altenburg Police Dept.

Birch Tree Police Dept.

Bismarck Police Dept.

Black Jack Police Dept.

Breckenridge Police Dept.

Browning Police Dept.

Burlington Junction Police Dept.

Callao Police Dept.

Canalou Police Dept.

Cardwell Police Dept.

Chamois Police Dept.

Clarksburg Police Dept.

Clyde Police Dept.

Conway Police Dept.

Deepwater Police Dept.

Delta Police Dept.

Eminence Police Dept.

Farber Police Dept.

Forest Park Police Dept.

Gainesville Police Dept.

Glen Echo Police Dept.

Golden City Police Dept.

Grant City Police Dept.

Green City Police Dept.

*Greenville Police Dept.

Hardin Police Dept.

*Hartville Police Dept.

Holland Police Dept.

*Holt Police Dept.

Homestown Police Dept.

Howardville Police Dept.

Kidder Police Dept.

Laddonia Police Dept.

Matthews Police Dept.

Mayview Police Dept.

Mill Springs Police Dept.

Mineral Point Police Dept.

Naylor Police Dept.

Neelyville Police Dept.

New Cambria Police Dept.

*New Madrid Police Dept.

Niangua Police Dept.

Oakland Police Dept.

Oronogo Police Dept.

Portage Des Sioux Police Dept.

Purdin Police Dept.

Rayville Police Dept.

Sheldon Police Dept.

Sparta Police Dept.

Stewartsville Police Dept.

Sycamore Hills Police Dept.

Twin Bridges Police Dept.

Unity Village Police Dept.

Vinita Terrace Police Dept.

Wardell Police Dept.

Waverly Police Dept.

Wayland Police Dept.

Winston Police Dept.

Table 3. Agencies that submitted incomplete reports

Garden City Police Dept.

Hollister Sheriff's Dept.

Vandalia Police Dept.

Table 4. Agencies that reported no stops (many contract out vehicle stops to other agencies)

This is the third annual analysis of traffic stops issued by the Attorney General's Office under Section 590.650 RSMo (2000), and the second compiling a full 12 months of data. Our analysis shows the 2002 data confirms the racial disparities reported for 2001, the first full year of data, and does nothing to dispel the prevalent perception that African Americans are stopped at a disproportionate rate compared to whites, and that both African Americans and Hispanics are searched at disproportionately high rates. These disparities remain significant, and are cause for concern.

Statistical disproportion, however, does not prove that law enforcement decisions involving traffic stops are being based solely on inappropriate factors. Racial profiling, as a matter of policy or individual practice, can neither be proved nor disproved by statistics alone. Nevertheless, these statistics provide objective evidence of a disproportion that many perceive to be a result of bias, and should be cause for heightened public awareness and debate about this issue.

In 2000, Missouri became a national leader in committing resources to assessing racial disparities in traffic stops and eliminating them. The overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies and their officers have diligently complied with Missouri law requiring that this information be collected and have worked with this office to ensure that our analysis is as accurate as possible. In addition, Missouri law now requires every agency to have a written policy regarding racial profiling; to provide additional training to its officers about the prohibition against this practice; and to promote the use of effective, non-combative methods for carrying out law enforcement duties in a racially and culturally diverse environment.

The 2002 data clearly refutes suspicions raised by some that collection of this information would result in "de-policing" or, in other words, a willful refusal of law enforcement officials to do their jobs. Law enforcement officers around the state, despite being outnumbered, overworked, and underpaid, continue to serve the public and faithfully discharge their duties as they always have and, I believe, always will.

Though, as I have noted and as the data shows, there is cause for concern and heightened scrutiny about the disproportionate number of traffic stops involving African Americans as well as the disproportionate number of ensuing searches of African Americans and Hispanics, it is important to note that it is law enforcement agencies and their officers themselves that are supplying this data and reacting to the disparities.

I applaud the efforts of law enforcement in helping to shed light on this issue, and I have referred those agencies (59 out of 720) that did not meet the reporting deadlines to the Governor for imposition of the statutory sanctions.

Section Il of this report, titled Statewide Findings, provides an analysis of the 2002 data, and compares that information to prior years. This analysis is done statewide and is not a reflection on any individual jurisdiction. In addition, as with any statistical analysis, there are limitations in the data that caution against drawing conclusions on less than the overall study.

Within any jurisdiction — perhaps within every jurisdiction — there are factors such as interstate highways, shopping centers and high-crime areas necessitating increased patrols that can affect the statistics reported. Factors may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that impact the demographics of the drivers in that jurisdiction as opposed to the residents in that jurisdiction. Finally, it should be remembered that the residential demographics are drawn by necessity from the 2000 census, which is an increasingly inaccurate depiction of Missouri demographics today.

Whatever the limitations of the data may be, however, they do not explain the disparities revealed by the data on a statewide basis. I believe that law-abiding Missourians have a right to travel throughout this state without fear that they will be stopped — an inconvenience at best and a humiliation at worst — based solely on their race or ethnicity. I know firsthand that Missourians of all races and law enforcement officers throughout our state share this belief. All of us must work together to ensure that this commitment will soon be reflected in the data that I am required by law to analyze and report.

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1: The figures for whites, blacks, Asians, and American Indians in Table 1 represent the number of non-Hispanic persons 16 and older who designated that race alone in the 2000 census. Hispanics may be of any race. About 1 percent of the population designated two or more races. These persons are included in the "other" category along with persons of unknown race.

Footnote 2: Caution should be used when comparing 2000 to subsequent years, especially for smaller agencies, because the 2000 figures are based on only four months of traffic data, while those for 2001, 2002 and 2003 are based on the entire year.